[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 156 (Monday, August 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19890]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 15, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 268

[SWH-FRL-5050-8]

 

Hazardous Waste Management System: Land Disposal Restrictions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of intent to approve application for a case-by-case 
extension of land disposal restrictions effective date and request for 
comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 3004(h)(3) of the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 6924(h)(3) and 40 CFR 268.5), EPA is 
proposing to approve the application submitted by Great Lakes Chemical 
Corporation (Great Lakes), requesting an extension of the June 30, 
1994, effective date of the RCRA land disposal restrictions (LDR) 
applicable to wastewaters with the hazardous wastes codes K117, K118, 
K131, K132, and F039. To be granted such a request, the applicant must 
demonstrate that there is insufficient capacity to manage its waste and 
that he has entered into a binding contractual commitment to construct 
or otherwise provide such capacity but due to circumstances beyond its 
control, such capacity cannot reasonably be made available by the 
effective date. If this proposed action is finalized, Great Lakes will 
be allowed to continue to treat, store, or dispose of its K117, K118, 
K131, K132, and F039 wastes as currently practiced, until June 30, 
1995, without being subject to the land disposal restrictions 
applicable to such wastes. If warranted, EPA may grant a renewal of 
this extension, for up to one year, which, if requested and granted, 
would extend the effective date of the LDR for these wastestreams to, 
at a maximum, June 30, 1996.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before September 
14, 1994.

ADDRESSES: The official record of this action is identified by Docket 
number F-94-GLCP-FFFFF. The public must send an original and two copies 
of their comments to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RCRA 
Information Center (5305), Room M2616, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20460. Place the Docket Number F-94-GLCP-FFFFF on all copies of your 
comments. Documents in the docket are available for viewing at this 
same address. The RCRA Information Center is open from 9:00 a.m. to 
4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. The 
public must make an appointment to review docket materials by calling 
(202) 260-9327. Copies cost $.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RCRA/Superfund Hotline, at (800) 
424-9346 (toll-free) or (703) 412-9810, in the Washington, DC 
metropolitan area. The TDD Hotline number is (800) 553-7672, or (703) 
486-3323, locally. For information on specific aspects of this notice 
contact William J. Kline, Office of Solid Waste, Capacity Programs 
Branch (5302W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, 
S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460, (703) 308-8440.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Congressional Mandate

    Congress enacted the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 
1984 to amend the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), to 
impose additional responsibilities on persons managing hazardous 
wastes. Among other things, HSWA required EPA to develop regulations 
that would impose restrictions on the land disposal of hazardous 
wastes. In particular, Sections 3004 (d) through (g) prohibit the land 
disposal of certain hazardous wastes by specified dates in order to 
protect human health and the environment except that wastes that meet 
treatment standards established by EPA are not prohibited and may be 
land disposed. Section 3004(m) requires EPA to set ``levels or methods 
of treatment, if any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the 
waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous 
constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to 
human health and the environment are minimized.''
    In developing such a broad program, Congress recognized that 
adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity which is 
protective of human health and the environment may not be available by 
the applicable statutory effective dates. Section 3004(h)(1) authorizes 
EPA to grant a variance (based on the earliest dates that such capacity 
will be available but not to exceed two years) from the effective date 
which would otherwise apply to specific hazardous wastes. In addition, 
under Section 3004(h)(2), EPA is authorized to grant an additional 
extension of the applicable deadline on a case-by-case basis for up to 
one year. Such an extension is renewable once for up to one additional 
year.
    On November 7, 1986, EPA published a final rule (51 FR 40572) 
establishing the regulatory framework to implement the land disposal 
restrictions program, including the procedures for submitting case-by-
case extension applications.
    On August 18, 1992, EPA published a final rule (57 FR 37194, 
37252), establishing treatment standards under the land disposal 
restrictions (LDR) program for certain hazardous wastes listed after 
November 8, 1984, including the following:
    1. K117-Wastewaters from the reactor vent gas scrubber in the 
production of ethylene dibromide via the bromination of ethylene.
    2. K118-Spent adsorbent solids from the purification of EDB 
produced by bromination of ethylene.
    3. K131-Wastewater from the reactor and acid dryer from the 
production of methyl bromide.
    4. K132-Spent adsorbent and wastewater separator solids from the 
production of methyl bromide.
    Because of a determination that available treatment, recovery, or 
disposal (TRD) capacity did not exist at that time for wastewaters 
K117, K118, K131, and K132 that are underground injected, EPA granted a 
two-year national capacity variance for these wastes. The variance 
expired on June 30, 1994.

B. Summary of Application

    The Great Lakes facility, located in El Dorado, Arkansas, uses 
extracted bromine from brine-bearing groundwater formations in the El 
Dorado, Arkansas area to produce bromine and brominated specialty 
chemicals. This case-by-case LDR extension application addresses 
effluent from the on-site process water treatment plant (PWTP) and 
ground water treatment plant (GWTP) that currently is disposed in Class 
I underground injection wells at this facility. Wastewaters (K117, 
K131) recovered as a result of ongoing corrective action, at a rate of 
up to 100 gallons per minute, and leachate (K118, K132) that is 
currently recovered, at a rate of up to 10 gallons per minute, from two 
closed on-site landfills, are treated in the GWTP. Effluent from the 
GWTP is piped to the PWTP where it is mixed with approximately 233 
gallons per minute of wastewater from production processes (K131), for 
equalization and neutralization. The more than 500,000 gallons per day 
of effluent that is generated from the PWTP for subsequent management 
by underground injection constitutes the full volume of wastes for 
which an extension of the LDR effective date is sought by Great 
Lakes.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under 40 CFR 261.3 (a)(2)(iv), the waste codes that apply to 
this effluent are K117, K118, K131, and K132. However, the mixture 
will also be subject to the treatment standards for F039, since that 
is a component of the mixture. See 268.41(b). In particular, 
treatment standards for K118 and K132 were promulgated in the LDR 
Phase 1 rule published on August 18, 1992. Since leachate from the 
land disposal of more than one waste code is considered multisource 
leachate (F039), the leachate generated at Great Lakes is considered 
F039 and the treatment standards for F039 apply. In addition, 
multisource leachate that is derived solely from newly identified 
wastes (such as from K118 and K132 only) is considered a newly 
identified waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Great Lakes states in its application that the effluent waste 
stream being disposed by underground injection will meet the applicable 
BDAT standards if the leachate is treated separately. Great Lakes has 
evaluated numerous treatment processes to determine which one will meet 
the BDAT standards; based on this evaluation, Great Lakes has concluded 
that conventional wastewater treatment technology cannot be used due to 
the complex chemistry posed by the presence of organic and inorganic 
brominated compounds in the leachate. As such, Great Lakes is proposing 
to construct a treatment system using ozonation technology, in 
conjunction with air stripping and carbon adsorption, to treat the 
leachates to applicable BDAT treatment standards, prior to their 
continued disposal in onsite Class I underground injection wells. This 
treatment system is expected to be completed and functional within 121 
days of receiving approval from the Arkansas Department of Pollution 
Control and Ecology (ADPCE) to construct the treatment system.
    In addition to constructing a treatment system to treat the 
leachates to BDAT standards, Great Lakes also considered segregating 
the leachates and sending it off-site for treatment and disposal as an 
interim measure to manage its leachates during the construction of the 
proposed treatment system. As discussed below, although there is 
insufficient off-site commercial treatment capacity to treat the more 
than 500,000 gallons per day of waste for which Great Lakes is 
requesting a case-by-case extension, there is enough capacity to manage 
the segregated leachates component of the wastes, i.e., approximately 
14,000 gallons per day.
    However, in order to use the available off-site commercial capacity 
to treat its leachates, Great Lakes would need to construct a transfer 
facility to enable the loading of the leachates onto trucks for off-
site transport. Great Lakes applied for a permit modification to the 
ADPCE for the construction of an interim transfer facility on May 10, 
1994. The ADPCE determined that a permit modification was necessary 
because the transfer facility requires the use of a filtration system 
(a type of hazardous waste treatment). It is unclear at present how 
much time it will take for ADPCE to approve the permit modification and 
for Great Lakes to construct the transfer facility, upon receiving 
approval of the permit modification. EPA believes, based on past 
experience, that the permit modification approval process and facility 
construction will take between several months and six months.
    In the process of evaluating the Great Lakes case-by-case extension 
application, EPA considered several options. One option was simply to 
propose to approve the case-by-case extension, until June 30, 1995, to 
allow Great Lakes to continue disposing of these wastes by on-site 
underground injection until the proposed treatment system is 
constructed and brought on-line in Spring 1995. Another option 
considered by EPA was to propose a case-by-case extension, for a period 
of time less than one year, to allow Great Lakes the time to receive 
approval for and to construct a transfer facility to send that portion 
of the more than 500,000 gallons per day of wastes (including the 
leachates) being generated for which off-site treatment capacity is 
available, i.e., between 298,000 to 385,000 gallons per day of 
capacity. A third option, given the availability of off-site treatment 
capacity, was to propose to approve the case-by-case extension, for a 
limited period of time --perhaps six months,-- to allow the continued 
injection of the wastes until Great Lakes received approval for and 
constructed the necessary transfer facility to send the leachates 
portion of the waste stream to off-site treatment and disposal.
    As discussed below, EPA is convinced of Great Lakes' commitment to 
construct and operate a treatment system to treat the leachates to BDAT 
standards prior to underground injection. Indeed, Great Lakes plans to 
proceed with the construction of the treatment system whether or not a 
transfer facility is provided to temporarily send these wastes to off-
site treatment/disposal. Permit modification approval and construction 
of a transfer facility may take as much or nearly as much time as would 
permit approval and construction of the proposed treatment system. 
Thus, the interim transfer facility would likely only need to be used 
for a very short period of time, if at all, until the proposed 
treatment system is brought on-line in early 1995. As such, EPA 
believes the most reasonable, desirable, and efficient use of all 
concerned parties resources would best be focused on bringing Great 
Lakes' proposed treatment system on-line as soon as possible. With this 
in mind, EPA is proposing the option of considering the Great Lakes 
case-by-case extension application based on the need to allow the 
construction of the proposed treatment system.
    EPA invites public comment on the proposed option as well as the 
other options described above.

C. Applicant's Demonstrations Under 40 CFR 268.5 for Case-by-Case 
Extension

    Case-by-case extension applications must satisfy the requirements 
outlined in 40 CFR 268.5. Great Lakes must address each of the 
following seven demonstrations of 40 CFR 268.5(a)(1)-(7):
    Section 268.5(a)(1). The applicant has made a good-faith effort to 
locate and contract with treatment, recovery, or disposal facilities 
nationwide to manage its waste in accordance with the effective date of 
the applicable restriction (i.e., June 20, 1994).
    Great Lakes asked ten hazardous waste management facilities located 
throughout the nation whether they could treat the waste for which the 
case-by-case extension is being requested. Of these ten facilities, 
five facilities indicated they had some available capacity to treat the 
waste: the Chemical Waste Management, Inc. facilities in Corpus 
Christi, Texas and Vickery, Ohio, the Gibraltar Chemical Resources 
facility in Winona, Texas, the GNI Group, Inc. facility in Deer Park, 
Texas and Rollins Environmental Services in Bayou Sorrel, Louisiana. 
The facilities indicated they, collectively, had between 298,000 to 
385,000 gallons per day of available treatment capacity. Thus, there 
may be enough available treatment capacity to manage approximately two-
thirds of the more than 500,000 gallons per day of waste being 
generated by Great Lakes, for which a case-by-case extension is being 
requested.
    While there apparently is treatment capacity available to manage a 
significant portion of this waste, Great Lakes noted that there are 
potential risks to human health and the environment resulting from the 
transportation of these hazardous wastes. Great Lakes would have to 
transport the restricted waste to a number of different treatment 
facilities by truck or railcar, the closest of which is 180 miles away. 
Great Lakes estimates that between 300,000 and 385,000 gallons of waste 
per day would require over 75 truckloads per day or one truckload 
approximately every 20 minutes.
    Although off-site treatment capacity is available to treat a 
portion of Great Lakes' wastewaters, the construction and permitting of 
transfer facilities is also needed to use this capacity. Great Lakes 
states that it would take between several months and six months to 
construct loading, unloading, and handling equipment to enable this 
waste to be transported off-site, once necessary permits are approved; 
a significant but unknown amount of time would be needed to permit such 
facilities. It should also be noted that even if this waste were 
shipped off-site for treatment, Great Lakes would still need a case-by-
case extension for the remainder of the waste for which no treatment 
capacity is available.
    Hence, EPA believes it is reasonable to conclude, under 
Sec. 268.5(a)(1), that, because of a lack of existing transfer 
facilities at this facility and the time needed to permit and construct 
such facilities, Great Lakes is unable to locate and contract for 
adequate, alternative treatment capacity for the off-site management of 
its waste.2 EPA believes that an equal or perhaps even less amount 
of time may be necessary to construct the proposed treatment system and 
obtain the necessary permit modifications as it would take for Great 
Lakes to construct facilities to transport these wastewaters to off-
site treatment. EPA agrees that the limitations faced by Great Lakes in 
using the limited available treatment capacity to treat the wastes 
generated at its El Dorado, Arkansas facility provide an adequate basis 
to fulfill the requirements of this demonstration. EPA is specifically 
interested in receiving comments on this proposed application of the 
Sec. 268.5(a)(1) standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\As discussed previously, the Agency also considered an option 
of limiting the case-by-case to the leachate generated from the on-
site landfills. See Section B for discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 268.5(a)(2). The applicant has entered into a binding 
contractual commitment to construct or otherwise provide alternative 
treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity that meets the treatment 
standards specified in 40 CFR Part 268, subpart D or, where treatment 
standards have not been specified, such treatment, recovery, or 
disposal capacity is protective of human health and the environment.
    Great Lakes plans to construct a treatment system, using ozonation 
in conjunction with air stripping and carbon adsorption, at its El 
Dorado, Arkansas facility to treat the subject wastes to meet BDAT 
standards. To support its demonstration of a binding contractual 
commitment to construct the treatment system, Great Lakes has provided 
EPA with the following documentation:
     Corporate approval of funds to purchase and construct the 
proposed treatment system at the El Dorado, Arkansas facility to treat 
the wastes to BDAT standards.
     Purchase Orders for equipment.
     A copy of the contract between Great Lakes and Milam 
Construction Company, as the general contractor, for the installation 
of equipment and the construction of the treatment system.
    Great Lakes has also provided data showing that its proposed 
treatment system will be capable of providing the necessary treatment 
to meet the applicable BDAT standards for these waste codes. Great 
Lakes will employ air stripping, ozonation, and carbon adsorption units 
to remove listed organic constituents to applicable BDAT limits.
    EPA recently proposed to list certain 2,4,6-tribromophenol (TBP) 
wastes as hazardous waste and to add these wastes to the list of 
hazardous constituents in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR Part 261 (see 59 FR 
24530, May 11, 1994). These wastes also are generated at the Great 
Lakes El Dorado facility and the proposed hazardous waste listing of 
TBP, if finalized, would require that Great Lakes eventually treat 
these wastes to BDAT (not yet specified). In any case, Great Lakes has 
stated that it anticipates that its proposed treatment system will 
effectively treat TBP at such time that treatment of TBP is required. 
(EPA is investigating what BDAT levels for TBP would ensure that any 
treated discharge would not be expected to have any significant aquatic 
effects.) Because the treatment levels for TBP have not yet been 
established by the Agency, it is impossible to determine if the 
proposed treatment system will meet such requirements. However, the 
Agency will expect Great Lakes to modify the treatment system if 
necessary to meet TBP treatment standards when and if such standards 
are set.
    EPA believes, as evidenced by the progress made by Great Lakes 
towards the construction of this wastewater treatment facility, that it 
is fully committed to and aggressively pursuing construction of the 
necessary on-site treatment capacity. EPA is convinced that Great Lakes 
is making a good-faith effort to construct a treatment unit that will 
treat the K117, K118, K131, K132, and F039 wastes generated at its El 
Dorado, Arkansas facility to BDAT standards. EPA believes Great Lakes 
has provided the necessary documentation to meet the requirements of 
this demonstration.
    Section 268.5(a)(3). Due to circumstances beyond the applicant's 
control, such alternative capacity cannot reasonably be made available 
by the applicable effective date. This demonstration may include a 
showing that the technical and practical difficulties associated with 
providing the alternative capacity will result in the capacity not 
being available by the applicable effective date.
    Great Lakes initiated a no-migration petition, under 40 CFR 268.6, 
for its existing injection wells in 1988. Despite extensive modeling 
and surveying, and considerable discussion by Great Lakes with EPA, 
unresolved issues have delayed final action on the no-migration 
petition. Finally, in 1993, Great Lakes concluded that its no-migration 
petition would not be granted prior to the impending land disposal 
restrictions effective date.
    Concurrently, Great Lakes had been evaluating various treatment 
technologies, including steam stripping, carbon adsorption, biological 
degradation, catalytic destruction, and membrane separation to treat 
their wastes. In fact, a previous case-by-case extension application by 
Great Lakes, submitted prior and rendered moot by EPA's issuance of a 
national capacity variance, was based on the proposed installation of a 
steam stripper. Subsequently, for various reasons, Great Lakes 
determined that steam stripping was not as feasible a treatment 
alternative as initially thought. Great Lakes' inability to get 
approval for its no-migration petition coupled with the difficulties 
encountered in identifying a feasible treatment process caused Great 
Lakes to accelerate further its research into a treatment process that 
would achieve BDAT. The system being proposed by Great Lakes, i.e., an 
ozonation treatment system supplemented with air stripping and an 
activated carbon adsorption system, was determined by Great Lakes to be 
the appropriate technology to achieve applicable BDAT treatment 
standards.
    Based on the above, EPA believes that Great Lakes has made a good-
faith effort to provide treatment capacity by the effective date. Great 
Lakes has aggressively pursued the development of technology capable of 
treating their wastes to BDAT standards. EPA believes Great Lakes has 
acted in good faith to provide the necessary treatment capacity but 
that such capacity could not reasonably be made available by June 30, 
1994, the effective date of the land disposal restriction for these 
wastes. As such, EPA believes this demonstration of non-availability of 
capacity, due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control, is 
adequate for the purposes of Sec. 268.5(a)(3).
    Section 268.5(a)(4). The capacity being constructed or otherwise 
provided by the applicant will be sufficient to manage the entire 
quantity of waste that is the subject of the application.
    Great Lakes, in its application, states that the treatment system 
to be constructed will have sufficient capacity to adequately treat the 
leachate wastestreams generated by the El Dorado, Arkansas facility. 
The air stripping/ozonation/carbon adsorption system to be constructed 
at Great Lakes' El Dorado, Arkansas facility has a design capacity of 
28,800 gallons per day (20 gallons per minute) and thus has adequate 
capacity to treat the leachates, generated at a rate of up to 10 
gallons/minute, prior to it being managed by underground injection. As 
such, the planned treatment system is expected to have sufficient 
treatment capacity. EPA believes that Great Lakes has adequately 
demonstrated that the treatment unit to be constructed will provide the 
necessary treatment capacity to ensure that the entire quantity of 
these leachates for which Great Lakes is requesting a case-by-case 
extension will meet applicable BDAT standards.
    Section 268.5(a)(5). The applicant provides a detailed schedule for 
obtaining operating and construction permits or an outline of how and 
when alternative capacity will be available.
    Great Lakes has provided EPA with a detailed schedule for the 
construction and permitting of the treatment system to be constructed 
at its El Dorado, Arkansas facility. Although Great Lakes had planned 
to begin construction of the treatment system in March 1994, final 
approval of required State permits still is pending. Great Lakes 
expects that construction of the treatment system will take 121 days 
from when ADPCE approves construction and that within 210 days of 
beginning construction, the treatment system will begin normal 
operation. EPA believes that Great Lakes has provided the necessary 
construction and permitting milestones for bringing its treatment 
system on-line and therefore meets the requirements of this 
demonstration.
    Section 268.5(a)(6). The applicant has arranged for adequate 
capacity to manage its waste during an extension, and has documented 
the location of all sites at which the waste will be managed.
    Great Lakes will continue to inject these wastes into the on-site 
Class I wells it has been using for this purpose. Great Lakes has 
indicated that these wells will have the necessary capacity available 
to manage these wastes during the extension, if approved. To provide 
even more assurance of adequate capacity, Great Lakes is pursuing a 
process wastewater minimization program to reduce the load on the PWTP 
and thus the quantity of waste needing underground injection. Two new 
Class I wells in a different and deeper geological formation (the 
Hosston Formation) are also planned. EPA believes that this 
documentation satisfies Sec. 268.5(a)(6).
    Section 268.5(a)(7). Any waste managed in a surface impoundment or 
landfill during the extension period will meet the requirements of 40 
CFR 268.5(h)(2).
    The subject wastes are hard-piped directly to the on-site Class I 
injection wells. As such, Great Lakes will not be using any surface 
impoundments or landfills to manage this waste during the extension 
period.

II. Consultation With State

    In accordance with 40 CFR 268.5(e), EPA consulted with the State of 
Arkansas (Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology) to 
determine if the State had any permitting, enforcement, or other 
concerns regarding this respective facility that EPA should take into 
consideration in deciding to grant or deny Great Lakes' application for 
a case-by-case extension of the LDR effective date. No such concerns 
were identified by the State of Arkansas.

III. EPA's Proposed Action

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA believes that Great Lakes has 
made and is continuing to make a good-faith effort towards providing 
sufficient and appropriate treatment capacity for the K117, K118, K131, 
K132, and F039 wastes that are the subject of its case-by-case 
application. Therefore, EPA is proposing to grant an extension, until 
no later than June 30, 1995, of the land disposal restrictions 
effective date for these wastes generated at the El Dorado, Arkansas 
facility. If the extension is granted, these wastes could continue to 
be managed in the manner that they are currently handled until no later 
than June 30, 1995 (unless the extension is renewed for up to one 
additional year, in which case the extension would expire no later than 
June 30, 1996), while the proposed treatment system is being 
constructed.
    Great Lakes applied for an extention of the LDR effective date 
until June 30, 1995. Depending on the time needed to permit and start-
up the system, a full one-year period may not be needed. It is possible 
that Great Lakes will complete process shakedown and also receive the 
permits necessary to put the treatment system into routine operation in 
less time. EPA is proposing to grant a case-by-case extension of the 
LDR effective date for the K117, K118, K131, K132, and F039 wastes 
generated at Great Lakes' El Dorado, Arkansas facility for a period of 
up to June 30, 1995. Nonetheless, EPA shares Great Lakes' desire to 
have the treatment system become fully operational as soon as possible. 
As such, EPA is proposing to grant the extension with the understanding 
that Great Lakes would put the treatment system into routine operation 
as soon as feasible. The extension would expire at such time the 
treatment system becomes fully operational and permitted. Under any 
circumstances, this proposed case-by-case extension would expire no 
later than June 30, 1995.
    After an applicant has been granted a case-by-case extension, he 
must immediately notify EPA of any change in the demonstrations made in 
the petition (40 CFR 268.5(f)). He must also submit progress reports at 
specified intervals that describe the progress being made towards 
obtaining adequate alternative capacity, identify any delay or possible 
delay in developing the capacity, and describe the mitigating actions 
being taken in response to the event (40 CFR 268.5(g)). EPA is 
proposing that Great Lakes submit monthly progress reports.
    EPA seeks public comment regarding the appropriateness of the 
approach in which the extension is approved with the understanding that 
Great Lakes will bring the proposed treatment system on-line as soon as 
feasible, as would be evidenced in the proposed monthly progress 
reports.
    The extension, if approved, will require that the facility make a 
good-faith effort to meet the schedule for completion. Should the 
facility not make a good faith effort, or should the Agency (or State) 
deny or revoke any required permit, conditions certified in the 
application change, or should the facility violates any law or 
regulations implemented by EPA, the Agency will consider taking action 
to terminate the extension. (Sections 1006, 2002(a), 3001, and 3004 of 
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 
and 6924)).

    Dated: July 28, 1994.
Peter Robertson,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 
Response.
[FR Doc. 94-19890 Filed 8-12-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P